DOUBLE STANDARD ON COCAINE

The human body doesn't know the difference between cocaine in the form
of powder, which is usually snorted, and crack rocks, which are
smoked. Either one elicits a powerful physiological reaction.

But federal law treats them like radically different drugs. Get
arrested with five grams of powder cocaine, and you can expect to get
probation. But if you're caught with the same amount of crack, you
won't need to pay rent for five years. To qualify for that same
five-year sentence for powder, you'd need to have 500 grams--100 times
as much as the trigger level for crack.

This 100-to-1 ratio has been a target of criticism from drug reform
activists, civil rights groups, and even presidents. The Sentencing
Project in Washington has noted that a dealer convicted of selling
$40,000 worth of powder could get off easier than the addict who
bought $500 worth of crack. Black defendants generally get worse
punishment than whites--simply because the two races have different
patterns of cocaine use.

In 1995, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a government body, called for
eliminating the disparity. Barry McCaffrey, drug czar under President
Bill Clinton, proposed to eliminate the different treatment
altogether. So did the Congressional Black Caucus.

President Clinton proposed a change, and last year, President Bush
endorsed the idea, saying, "I don't believe we ought to be
discriminatory." But so far, Congress has resisted.

That resistance at last appears to be eroding. Recently, two
conservative Republican senators, Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Orrin
Hatch of Utah, introduced a bill that would narrow the gap
considerably. To get a mandatory five-year prison sentence, a
defendant would have to be caught with at least 20 grams of crack, up
from the current 5. The trigger for powder, meanwhile, would
drop--from 500 grams to 400. The disparity would shrink from 100-to-1
to 20-to-1.

Getting tougher on powder users is not the best way to address the
problem, but it may be needed for political cover. Fortunately, the
legislation has other provisions that would mitigate the harsh
unfairness of federal drug laws.

Many of the people in federal prison on drug charges are low-level
couriers persuaded by friends or romantic partners to carry a package
of drugs. Because they know little, they usually can't bargain with
prosecutors to testify in exchange for lenient treatment. As a result,
they often get locked up for long periods, while the higher-ups get
off easy.

The Sessions-Hatch bill would reduce penalties for any defendant who
"had a minimal knowledge of the illegal enterprise, was to receive
little or no compensation from the illegal transaction, and acted on
impulse, fear, friendship, or affection." Drug traffickers who exploit
such people, by contrast, would be subject to stiffer penalties than
now.

The crack-powder disparity has long raised questions about the
American commitment to equal protection of the laws. Congress
shouldn't miss this chance to reduce an embarrassing inequity.